Justifying Work: Occupational Rhetorics as Resources in Restaurant Kitchens

Author(s): Gary Alan Fine

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Mar., 1996), pp. 90-115
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell
University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393987 .
Accessed: 23/09/2012 12:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
JustifyingWork:
OccupationalRhetorics
as Resources in
RestaurantKitchens
Gary Alan Fine
Universityof Georgia
? 1996 by Cornell University.
0001 -8392/96/4101-0090/$1 .00.
0 concerned, of what kind of person am I? Through
The author thanks Stephen Barley,
Robert Faulkner, and John Van Maanen
for comments on an earlier draft of the
article. Portions of this article were
prepared while the author was a fellow at
the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences. He is grateful for
financial support provided by National
Science Foundation #SBR-9022192.
1 Occupationalrhetoricreflects what KennethBurke(1969)
Occupational rhetoric has been referred
to elsewhere, generally with less
emphasis on self-identity, as
"occupational ideology." Those who
speak of occupational ideology typically
refer to a worldview or coherent
perspective, learned through socialization,
that articulates the relationship between
the occupationand other types of work.
Occupations often have been defined as belonging to a
particularclass of work, linked to a single occupational
rhetoric. In contrast, I argue here that most occupations
are segmented in terms of divisions among workers,
among work tasks, and among occupational identities. I
present evidence from an ethnographic study of
restaurant cooks to demonstrate that workers rely on a
variety of occupational rhetorics as resources to define
their work and their identity. I claim that cooks draw on
the alternative rhetorics of profession, art, business, and
labor to shape how they think of themselves as workers.
The paper shows that occupational identity is socially,
temporally, and spatially situated, raising the question of
when particular rhetorical strategies will be relied upon.*
The chef is not an employee in the common meaning of the
word, but a practitioner,an artist,a fabricator.
Jean-PaulAron, TheArt of Eatingin France(1975: 150)
Occupationsare, in some measure, a collection of tasks and
assignments, set in an organizationalenvironment.Yet to
both insiders and outsiders, practitionersand clients,
occupations also involve meaningfulwork identities,
understood in lightof a divisionof labor.Occupationsvary in
status, authority,prestige, and stigma. Withinoccupations
are tasks (Strauss, 1991): activities that are not only physical
but also cultural(Wacquant,1995). They are a means of
placingoneself and being placed by others within a social
system (Abbott,1988). Discursivestrategies define our
selves and our work (Bruner,1986; Gergen and Gergen,
1988; Boden, 1994; Baumeisterand Newman, 1994). In this
sense, occupationalpresentationis a bundle of accounts, a
set of role resources (Bakerand Faulkner,1991) that explain
who one is and how one should be taken by others.
Focusingon how workers define themselves, I speak of the
process of fittingwork into a meaning system as
constitutingan occupationalrhetoric.1Neophytes are often
uncertainabout their role and abilities(VanMaanenand
Schein, 1979); these rhetoricsprovidea structureby which
they define their competence (Haas and Shaffir,1982) and
address the centralquestion, as far as one's work role is
occupationalrhetoric,workers justifytheir work and explain
to themselves and their publicwhy what they do is
admirableand/or necessary, a form of impression
management. Fittinginto an organizationand occupation
depends on identityas well as instrumentalcompetence
(Zabuskyand Barley,1994).
termed the "pronouncedcharacterof mind"of occupations.
Burkesuggested that lawyers interpretthe world legally,
physiciansmedically,gardeners horticulturally,and,
presumably,cooks edibly. Becker and Carper(1956),
describingschoolteachers, spoke of an "occupational
personality."FollowingEverett Hughes and the Chicago
school of occupationalsociology, this underlinesthat work is
90/Administrative Science Quarterly,41 (1996): 90-115
Occupational Rhetorics

a bulwarkof identity(Snow and Anderson, 1987) and that

occupationalidentityis constructed by a communityof
workers in lightof the responses of others and workplace
interaction(Abbott,1988; Colomyand Brown, 1995: 45-49).
A dilemma of being unemployedand impoverishedis that
this fundamentalidentityhas been eliminated,with no self-
enhancing replacementor no organizationalcommunityto
providesupport. Hughes (1971: 338-339) asserted:
[A]man's work is one of the things by which he is judged, and
certainlyone of the more significantthings by which he judges
himself. Manypeople in our society work in named occupations.
The names are tags, a combinationof price tag and callingcard.
One has only to hear casual conversationto sense how important
these tags are. Heara salesman, who has just been asked what he
does, reply,"I am in sales work,"or "I am in promotionalwork,"
not "I sell skillets." It happens over and over that the people who
practicean occupationattempt to revise the conceptions which
theirvariouspublics have of the occupationand of the people in it.
In so doing, they also attempt to revise their own conception of
themselves and their work.
Yet a fundamentalproblemexists with regardto the
traditionaloccupationalidentityperspective. Typically,
occupationalidentityis seen as a closely linkedset of
images that connects one to an unambiguouswork world.
While other self-schemas may applyto other spheres of life
(e.g., family, leisure),a dominantschema organizes how one
places oneself in lightof a single set of occupational
standards.Such a perspective, emphasizinga dominant
occupational"characterof mind"does not do justice to the
diversities of work and its interpretations(Dornbuschand
Scott, 1975). Consistent with currenttrends in self theory, I
argue that images of work roles are mutable (Zurcher,1977)
and divisible(Gergen, 1991); partof a repertoireof meanings
that are used to make sense of who one is (Snow and
Anderson, 1987). This differentiationcan be based either on
placement or on situation,referringeither to different
categories of practitionersor to differentoccasions of
practice,such that identityclaims and vocabulariesof motive
are conditionalon social features evident in the work.
Often when we thinkabout occupations, we employ a
dominantlabel with associated culturalbaggage ("politician,"
"lawyer,""custodian"),an occupational"essence." Yet
many occupations fit into several corners of the interpretive
system by which we dividework. Occupationalidentities are
variablein that circumstances and conditions of work differ
systematically.Occupationsare socially segmented (Bucher,
1962), and sometimes sharp rivalriesmay emerge between
those divisions. Not all doctors, lawyers, painters,or cooks
do similarthings-a functionof organizationaland client
demands, the choices of workers, the specialized knowledge
of subgroups, and career stage.
While both placement and situationdivide work, those who
argue that occupations are socially differentiatedtypically
emphasize the formalsegmentation of work categories (e.g.,
Bucherand Strauss, 1961; Barber,1965; Braude,1975: 116;
Blau, 1984), whereas situated differentiation,less studied,
emphasizes that workers may have several bundles of
images on which to draw that are used in appropriate
91/ASQ, March 1996
contexts, given their occupationalposition (careerstage) or
the demands at hand (occasioned pressures). These
segments may struggle for status, may coexist peacefully, or
may ignore each other.
Althoughworkers within an occupationalclass differfrom
each other in their skills, interpersonalchallenges, structural
concerns, organizationalrequirements,or publicimages
(Rosenblum,1978), within the worklifeof workers
considerablevariabilityexists in the requiredtasks. For
instance, some attorneys specialize in corporatecases, and
others are ambulancechasers; the two groups differ in how
they define their work and how they justifytheir activities.
But it is equallytrue that solo practitionersone day may
bringa criminalcase and, the next, an employment
discriminationclaim. Attorneys may engage in different
classes of work and may identifythemselves in lightof
those tasks. Similarly,academics may alternatelysee
themselves as researchers,teachers, intellectuals,
bureaucrats,or entrepreneurs-each capturingpartof the
occupationalidentityand capable of being used to present
that identityto others.
Few occupations have a single rhetoricalstance, but, rather,
occupationalrhetoricsare employed strategically.Perhaps
more significantly,varyingimages of work may be presented
on differentoccasions to exemplify a "situated identity"
(Stone, 1962; Alexanderand Wiley, 1981). These rhetorics
are not objective depictions of a single work realitybut
represent articulationwork that is done to construct meaning
(Strauss, 1988) linkedto a worker's sense of self. Rhetorical
images constitute a resource to create a role-basedidentity,
a particularlysalient issue for those occupations that fit into
organizationsin multipleways (Zabuskyand Barley,1996).
Giventhe situated qualityof identitywork, the question is
not only what occupationalidentities are possible, but under
what conditionsof work are particularidentitychoices
made? Arguingthat the choice of an occupationalrhetoric
solves identityproblemsfor the worker, I rely on a
comparativeanalysis of rhetoricalstrategies to examine the
constraintsand opportunitiesthat particularorganizational
structures,tasks, and situations providethe worker and how
these evoke images of self.
Withina day, not to mention a career, most workers engage
in a varietyof tasks that have differentemotions, different
degrees of autonomy, differentstandardsof evaluations,and
consequently, differenteffects on occupationalidentity.To
thinkof an occupationas havinga single orientation,motive,
personality,or charactermisses the potentialdiversityof
occupations and the demands of those places in which work
occurs (Perrow,1967; Scott, 1992: 227). The assumption of
a dominantidentityoverly limits people's choices in
constructingtheir work relations.Tasks are socially situated
and organizationally determined and gain their meaning, and
hence their connection to identities,accordingto the
conditionsof work and the motivationsof workers.
Organizationallife challenges workers to be flexible in the
tasks assigned to them. Workersmay be task specialists,
but, when embedded in organizations,their task is to do
whatever is necessary within their abilityto achieve the ends
92/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

of the organization.This realityof the negotiated orderof the

organizationbroadens the activities of workers and, hence,
expands how they see themselves.
Further,the divisionbetween placement and situationis not
entirelyclean. Some placements are more likelyto provoke
certaintypes of situations.The organizationalrequirements
of particularworkplaces tend to produce occasions on which
certainoccupationalrhetoricsare found, even while all may
be found to some degree. For instance, highlybureaucratic
or unionizedworkplaces might limitthe range of tasks
expected. Other organizationsstress that workers must be
flexible, leadingto a wider range of identities. To
demonstrate the range of rhetoricsavailableto members of
an occupation, I focus on a single work world: that of
professionalcooking.

THEWORLDOF COOKS
Cooking,because of its ambiguous position within the world
of work, linkedto production,service, and management
(Gross, 1958), underlineshow an occupationcan be defined
and the identities in which workers can wrap themselves.
While all occupations have strains and multipleidentities, as
noted above, a range of rhetoricsis particularlyevident in
those occupations in which the publicperceptionof the
status and meaning of work is ambiguous and in those
occupations that are responsible for a widely diverse set of
tasks. In addition,the fact that cooks depend on their links
to other occupationaldomains (servers, dishwashers,
managers, suppliers,and the like)expands the rhetorical
choices available.While this is certainlynot unique, as most
occupations are partof an integrateddivisionof labor,the
centralityof cooks within the organizationalnetwork is
striking(Fine, 1996: 87-110).
I focus on four sets of rhetoricalstrategies that cooks rely
on, and in doing so, I refer to ideal types. I argue that cooks
can draw on images of being professionals, artists,
businessmen, or manuallaborers-rhetorical images that
depend on the conditionsof work. I do not contend that
these are the only rhetoricalresources that are availablefor
these workers, but they are frequent themes. Other
potentialoccupationalimages are not considered here: for
instance, cooks as craftpersonsor scientists.
I conducted participantobservationin four restaurantsin the
Twin Cities metropolitanarea, spending a month observing
and taking notes in each kitchenduringall periods in which
the restaurantwas open. I spent, on average, 50-85 hours
in each, havingobtainedthe approvalof the restaurant
management and the cooking staff, a total of 105 days and
255 hours of observation.In each restaurant,I interviewed
all full-timecooks, a total of thirtyinterviews. Each interview
lasted approximately90 minutes, with some extending over
three hours.
The four restaurantsrepresent a range of professional
cooking environmentsin the Twin Cities (see Fine, 1996:
245-253). 1 do not claim that these four restaurantsform a
representativesample; clearly,they do not. They represent
the upper portionof Minnesota restaurantsin status; they
93/ASQ, March 1996
are not "family,""fast food," or "ethnic" restaurants:(1) La
Pomme de Terreis an haute cusine Frenchrestaurant,by all
accounts one of the best and most innovativerestaurantsin
the upper Midwest. (2) The Owl's Nest is a continental-style
restaurant,best known for the qualityof its fresh fish. Its
primaryclientele is businessmen, and the restaurantis a
multiyearHolidayAwardwinner. (3) Stan's Steakhouse is a
family-ownedsteakhouse. It is particularly well known in its
neighborhood,a middle-classarea not known for its
restaurants.It has received metropolitanawards for the
qualityof its beef. (4) The Twin Cities BlakemoreHotel is
partof a chain of hotels that are not esteemed for their
cuisine. The hotel is modern, cateringespecially to business
travelers.The hotel has a banquet service and operates a
coffee shop and diningroom. Althoughthe four restaurants
varywidely in the numberof customers served-from 500
on a busy weekend evening at Stan's to about 75 on the
same evening at La Pomme de Terre-each hiredfrom five
to ten cooks, of whom usuallythree or four were working in
the kitchensimultaneously.
A study of cooks in a second-tier, "provincial"metropolitan
area draws on a differentsample than one based on elite
chefs in a primaryculturalcenter (e.g., New York,San
Francisco,New Orleans),where a more self-conscious
aesthetic rhetoricmay be evident. It is precisely that these
cooks are not among the elite that makes them analytically
interesting.Trainedin trade school, where cooking by its
institutionalplacement was likenedto other industrialwork
and not to other arts, leads them to be open to alternative
occupationalmodels besides the artisticone (Fine, 1985).
Elsewhere (Fine, 1996: 233-326) 1 described my role in the
kitchens in which I observed. In each restaurant,I first
received the approvalof the head chef and then the owners.
On my first day in the restaurantkitchen, I explained my
interest in understandingthe work of cooks and assured
them that I was not an agent of the owners. I emphasized
that I wished to watch them work and subsequently to
interviewthem. At no time did I "cook," but occasionally,
when a need existed, I served as an extra pairof hands,
occasionallypeeling potatoes or destringingcelery. Generally
I would sit or stand in a cornerof the kitchenand take
notes, conversingwith the cooks or servers in slow periods.
I was well accepted in each restaurantand often was plied
with food, in parta gift of friendshipand in parta bribe.
While at first cooks wondered if I was an agent of
management (one wondered if I was conductinga "time
study"), in time they came to trust and tease me,
recognizingthat I would not reporttheir "fiddles"(Marsand
Nicod, 1984), beers, and other forms of organizational
deviance (Fine, 1996: 234).
THERHETORICAL RANGEOF COOKING
Anyone who has spent time in restaurantkitchens quickly
recognizes that cooking is a multidimensionaloccupation.
Thus, the question of what other occupations were similarto
cooking-the analogizingof work-was central.The
competent cook requiresan extraordinaryrange of skills,
linkedto distinctivework orientations,depending on position,
94/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

task, and organizational demands. This permitted cooks to

have a large rhetorical "toolkit" from which to draw. Cooks
were continually justifying and legitimating their work
through analogies. For instance, one cook explained when I
asked what occupations were similar to cooking: "It
depends on what kind of cooking you're doing. You can be
cooking like a bricklayer. Or you can be cooking like an artist.
It could be something now and something else later"
(personal interview, La Pomme de Terre).
In particular, chefs, because of the managerial demands
made of them, must be skilled in many different types of
tasks. This range is exemplified in a phrase, often repeated,
that "a chef is many things," claiming multiple intelligences
necessary for occupational success. The phrase was so
pervasive that I inquired about it in my in-depth interviews.
The responses revealed the diversity of the tasks required of
chefs:
The chef is the carpenter,plumber,electrician,handyman,
psychologist, psychiatrist.Cooks are going to come in here and say,
"I have problems"and he's going to say, "Why?What is your
problem.I know that your work is sloughing. I know that you're not
workingup to your potential.What's buggingyou?" And they'll let
you know that their boyfriendbeat them up the night before and
that their girlfriendleft them or whatever, and they unload,and
they feel better, and they go back to work and it's great. The
garbage disposal is plugged up. . .. You have to know how to
unplugthe garbage disposal. You'llrewirethe switch for an
extension cord that you need for a steam table or you pound
something back together or screw it back together or fix your
ovens and do so many things. (Personalinterview,Blakemore
Hotel)
We have to have basic cooking talents. We have to have creative
cooking talents. You have to be a personneldirectoras far as hiring
and firingpeople. You have to be a purchasingagent. You have to
be a butcher.You have to be accomplished in all the steps in
leading to a chef. . . . You almost have to be a psychologist. I think
that's almost one thing that reallyshould be a prerequisiteis one or
two psychologycourses to understandhumannature.To be able to
deal with problems,and not, if someone has a problem,tell them
to shut up and go home or I don't want to hear about it. . . . You
don't have to try and be God to them to give them specific
answers, but try and help them in any way you can. It's almost like
havingyour own familyhere. You'realmost like being a father.The
parent.You take care of the children.You buy the groceries and
cook the food, make sure the house is clean. There's a lot of
responsibility.You have to watch your payroll.The cost of food.
(Personalinterview,Owl's Nest)
A similar view is also expressed by the voices of the
hospitality industry, that, in attempting to convince the public
that-the chef is worthy of respect, draws from a wide array
of (high-status) occupational domains:
The chef being a person who can cook has to be an artist. He has
to be a scientist because he has to come up with new foods that
have nutritionalvalue. He has to be a humanist,because he has to
work with differenttypes of people. He has to be an accountant,
especially today where food costs have been risingand risingand
rising.In many ways he has to be a philosopherbecause food and
historywere always very close together. (KraftFoodservice
Division,n.d.)
95/ASQ,March 1996
The belief that the tasks of chefs-and, to a degree,
cooks-are diverse justifies the range of occupational
rhetorics(professionalism,art, business, and labor),each
drawingon widely recognized social images while
simultaneouslyconstrainingactors. The diversityof images
embedded in being a chef are in parta function of his or her
deeper, richer,and more complex conceptualizations,a
consequence of long-terminvolvementin the industry.This
suggests, by implication,that tenure in an occupationalarena
may contributeto a more nuanced set of rhetoricalimages.
THERHETORIC
OF PROFESSIONS
The sociological literatureon professions is large and
influential,flowing from early studies that attempted to
determine "objective"characteristicsof occupations that
indicatedthat they were "true"professions. Eitherone was
a professionalor one wasn't. Thus, Greenwood (1957)
specified in his classic analysis that professions are
characterizedby (1) systematic theory, (2) professional
authority,(3) communitysanction, (4) a well-developed
ethical code, and (5) a professionalculture.This model
stems from examininghigh-statusoccupations that
members and the publicalike label as "professions." This
view is roundlycriticizedby those who see the creation of
'professional"identityas partof a sociopoliticalprocess in
which occupationalworkers use the rhetoricof
professionalismto gain autonomy and status trappings(e.g.,
Becker, 1970; Freidson,1970; Roth, 1974), particularlyin
contrast with other occupations (Dingwall,1977; Abbott,
1988). Yet both views of professions assume that
occupationallabels are stable within a given setting,
deemphasizingthe claim that an occupationcan be seen by
workers as professional-likein some circumstances and not
in others. The question is not what is a profession, but when
is a profession?
By standarddefinitions,cooking does not constitute a
"profession,"althoughattempts have been made, notably
throughits "professional"group, the AmericanCulinary
Federation,to upgradethe status of the occupation, and in
the mid-1970s its formalstatus was raised significantlywhen
the Departmentof Laborchanged the census category of
chef from "domestic" to "professional"work in the food
industry(Julian,1986: 37). Giventhe classical model of
professions, cooks and chefs can at best be considered
"quasi-professionals"(Etzioni,1969), but this public
perceptiondoes not prevent cooks from using the label
professionalto describe themselves and their work, tied to
the "professionalizationof everybody"(Wilensky,1964:
137).
Along with artisticrhetoric,with which it may conflict
(Manfredi,1982: 77-78), the rhetoricof professionalismis a
status markerby which cooks gain credit and control in the
rough-and-tumble world of status politics.A cook explained:
"You kindasay I cook at so-and-so, and people kindaperk
up. ... Especially if you say I work at the Blakemore. You
have a status. You have a professionalself" (personal
interview, BlakemoreHotel).The higherthe prestige of the
restaurant(e.g., the Owl's Nest or La Pomme de Terre),the
96/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

easier it is to justifyone's work with such a label, although I

found the rhetoricof professionalism,at times, in each of
the four establishments.
Historicalchanges in occupationaldomains also affect the
rhetoricof professionalism.Some cooks, in examiningtheir
status positions, claim that these positions have changed
over time:
I learnedthat it was a lot tougher as a cook years ago [than]it is
now. Cooks and chefs years ago were not respected. They were
thought of as drunksand dummies, and they didn't know anything,
and it was easy to be a cook, and it was easy to be in this
business. That's changed now. The culinaryprofession has grown,
and it's getting to be a profession where not just anybodycan get
into it.... I'd have to say it's a profession. That's the attitudethat
you take on as a person. . . When I work I try to feel as
professionalas can be. If I feel professionaland feel good about my
work, the productI'm going to put out is going to be good. If I
don't feel like a professionaland I don't reallycare, then it's not
going to be as good. (Personalinterview,Owl's Nest)
Not only does this cook claim that his profession has
changed but that, with this change, the selves of workers
have changed.

Professional Analogizing
Analogizingcan be a potent basis for justifyingone's identity,
aligningone's work with an elite status, a technique I find
for artisticrhetoricas well. Cooks attempt to demonstrate
that they are like other consensually defined professionals by
comparingthe types of actions that they performto those
performedin other work realms. Often, this rhetoricis fairly
general and may not be fully persuasive, as in the following
excerpts, connecting cooking to law and medicine:
If you take a doctor or a lawyer,they go throughyears of training.
And a chef or a cook actuallydoes the same things. Even if it's on
the job, it's years of training.It's years of disciplinein doing certain
things. Likewith a doctor or lawyer,they always find out
something new every day. Laws and medicalthings. It's the same
thing with a cook, every day it's something new. (Personal
interview,BlakemoreHotel)
Law and medicine are practiceprofessions. Cookingwould be, too.
What you're actuallydoing is using an accepted method everyday
and doing something, makinga sauce, fryinga piece of fish, but
you're also practicingdoing that at the same time. You'retrying
new things. (Personalinterview,Owl's Nest)
At times, the metaphoricconnection between cooking and
other professions can be more specific. The particularlinkis
with medicine. Both occupations involve client health and
surgery (Willan,1977: 68). On several occasions, cooks
likenedcutting food to surgery, noting that their careful
slicing (e.g., of a salmon filet) was like a surgeon's cut (field
notes, Owl's Nest) or jokingthat surgeons "fillet"patients
(field notes, BlakemoreHotel).

Professional Occasions
Emphasizingthe situated qualitiesof occupationalrhetoric,
examine the conditionsof work that give rise to these forms
of discourse. As I noted, the structuralconditions and market
97/ASQ, March 1996
niche of an organizationaffect the likelihoodof particular
occupationalrhetoricsbeing used. Althoughthe conditions
that elicit particularrhetoricalstrains are not equally likelyin
all types of restaurants,the restaurantsthat I examined
revealed multiplerhetoricsthat variedaccordingto
circumstances and demands.
In restaurantkitchens, the rhetoricof professionalism
emerged undertwo sets of circumstances. First,on those
occasions in which subculturalknowledge was salient, cooks
were likelyto define themselves as holders of this
knowledge as professionals. Second, in our culture,
professionalismis linkedto occasions that encourage a
vigorous attachment to one's work. When work requiredan
expressed dedicationand devotion, the model of cooking as
a "true"profession was available.
Subcultural knowledge. Everyoccupation has a base of
knowledge, but members of some occupations attempt to
transformthis base into the groundingof occupational
authority:creatingtheory from skill.A sphere of work can be
a mystery for those without this body of knowledge.
Uncertaintyover outcomes gives professions power and
discretion(Nilson, 1979). The problemchefs face is that
everyone has cooked, while few have performedsurgery or
reupholsteredfurniture.Infact, most novices in the kitchens
of restaurantslackformaltraining.How can cooks claim
special expertise? Simplyknowing how to heat or stir food
does not demonstrate that one can cook, and many kitchen
tasks are "transparent"to outsiders. A strangercan easily
performthem. Forother tasks, one must have had
experience and/or training.It is not sufficient that this skill
exists-but it must not be shared by outsiders. Complex
tasks and those that are not performedin home kitchens,
such as garnishingor mass cooking, are particularlylikelyto
be seen as professional.
Ultimately,knowledge is acquiredthrough"payingone's
dues." Workingin a restaurantkitchen,one learns tricks of
the trade, hiddentechniques, or secret recipes (for
examples, see Fine, 1996: ch. 1). One learns how to cut
rapidlyat an angle, to whisk sauces to a satiny sheen, or to
produce tomato "roses" with facility.On occasions, these
techniques are closely held. Gross (1958: 394) noted:
"When the restaurantexpands or new cooks are hired,the
chef is frequentlyasked to set down his recipe in writingfor
others and in case he gets sick or leaves. However to do so
is to de-professionalize(because it standardizes)his
occupationto some extent." Knowledgeis personally
situated throughexperience-based expertise. One chef
notes: "People ask me how do I know that the steamed
chicken will be rightwhen we open the earthenwarevessel.
Well, it's my business to know that it will be right. It's
mathematics and chemistry.You know the weight of the
chicken, and the heat inside the vessel, don't you? The rest
is up to you" (Wechsberg, 1985: 244). The cooks that I
observed made similarexpertise claims. When
demonstratingtheir knowledge, they could justifytheir role
througha specific corpus of knowledge. As one said, "To be
a professionalchef there's a lot of things you have to know.
You have to know about bread, how to make a lot of
98/ASQ, March 1996

2 job:
By score he means how steaks are
placed on a grill and for how long, leaving
grill marks (scoring) on the meat. Some
cooks leave steaks on the grill for a short
period of time, mostly baking them in the
oven. This saves time but gives the
customer the illusion that the steak was
grilled.
Occupational Rhetorics
different kinds [of things], how to orderthings. I don't think
just anybodyoff the street can do that. I thinkthat takes
trainingand many years of experience before you can get it
down pat" (personalinterview, BlakemoreHotel).
Knowledgederives from particularexperiences in a "real"
restaurantkitchenand is reflected in culinarydecisions.
These skills cannot be learnedfrom books, from home
cooking, or from trade-schooleducation.The formal rules of
cooking are only partialguides:
Cookingis the sort of thing that you can make it a science, get it all
on paper,so if you take X of this and X of that, and combine them,
you end up with Y, and it's pretty much always that way. That's the
idea with franchiserestaurants.It's an admirablegoal, but from my
experience I find it difficultto do that, because the qualityof food
changes, and there is just so many variablesgoing on, so that what
you need is somebody with sense to observe things constantly.
(Personalinterview,Minneapoliscook)
Professionalismis embedded in the choices of work. Cooks
take professionalpridewhen experience and expertise
permitthem to cook without relyingon recipes, using
approximateamounts. To an observer, their informaljudging
of ingredientsis impressive and to a diner, worrisome. The
cooks at the better restaurantstaste their creations and
correct them if needed. Thus, when novel, nonroutine,or
complex creations (cakes, sauces, or souffles) are referred
to, the rhetoricof professionalismis in evidence.
A key criterionthat characterizesprofessionalrhetoricis the
claim that workers have autonomy to decide (Blau, 1984):
The qualityof the productdepends on them. Those
situations that involvechoice are likelyto underlinea
recognitionof professionalpractice. How do cooks talk about
autonomy, in lightof nonroutinecooking and broader
occupationalchoices? The realityof the lives of most cooks
is that much of the structurethat they confront has been
selected by others. Few chose the builtenvironmentand the
largerblocks of tasks they confront (Strauss, 1991; Fine,
1991).
Whenever possible, cooks assert the rightto choose. The
abilityto put a personalstamp on productscontributesto the
rhetoricof professionalism:"There'salways that [variability]
in everythingyou do. How you cook a steak. How you score
steak.2 I guess I wouldn'twant to be in this business if I had
to do things exactly the way that Bruce does them. ...
We're not a bunch of robots" (personalinterview, Owl's
Nest).
Along with the choices that cooks make, or believe they
have the authorityto make, is the abilityto take account of
local circumstance,as evidenced by one cook's answer
when I asked what was the most satisfying thing about the
Something that I can do by myself without corporationstandards
and policies and be able to have somebody say . .. or have the
chef say, "Hey, that reallylooks great!," without them havingto
come down with a memo and say this is the way it should be
done.... I do havea brainandI do liketo work.Giveme credit.
(Personalinterview,BlakemoreHotel)
99/ASQ, March 1996
Of course, such decisions are only possible on occasion;
often management sets guidelines. In haute cuisine
restaurantssuch choices are embedded in job descriptions,
but even in more modest establishments, decisions on how
to cook steaks of varioussizes and qualitiesor how long to
cook fish involve professionaljudgment.Whether cooks and
chefs actuallyhave this authority,the abilityto present this
claim contributesto their sense of professionalidentity.
Attachment. When one sees oneself as a professional,
one's identityis likelyto be self-enhancing.Unlikethe
rhetoricof manuallabor,which divides one's work and
personal self, professionalismmerges work and self; pride in
one's achievement is crucial.The existence of specialized
skills is likelyto generate a sense that one has needed
expertise. Cooks claim to enjoy demonstratingtheir
abilities-to others and to themselves. I was surprisedby
one cook's response when I asked if it's easier if a table
orders the same entree: "We don't like to see it. It doesn't
show the varietyof the restaurant.The people who are
smart will all orderdifferentthings: a fish, a chicken, a beef.
That's what I like to see, then they can spread the word"
(field notes, Owl's Nest). Makingspecial dishes also involves
professionalpride,as evidenced by one cook's answer when
I asked what he likedbest about cooking: "Youwork on real
fancy dishes and stuff like that all the time. I thinkit's great.
I like the feeling when you do something reallyfancy like
makinga Beef Wellington"(personalinterview,Owl's Nest).
In contrast are cooks' attitudes when asked to prepare
dishes defined as beneath them: too simple or routine,and
lackingprofessionalskills. How can one identifywith a job
that anyone could do? One cook reporteda "legendary"
event:
Cooks don't liketo cook hamburgers.[One day] Herbtook a raw
hamburgerand handed it raw to a waitress, saying, "Theycan cook
it themselves." It's not a delicacy. I suppose [cooks] have esteem
for themselves. If they cook for so long, they should be beyond
hamburgersand meatloaf. (Fieldnotes, BlakemoreHotel)
Partof the professionalidentitythat incorporatesor engulfs
the self involves occupationalattachment (Stebbins, 1970;
Lincolnand Kalleberg,1990). When occupational
identificationis high, professionalrhetoricis likely-little is
more importantthan the work. Professionalrhetoricdoes not
occur constantly, but it is particularlylikelywhen a worker
feels that it is his or her presence that contributesto
successful production.

THERHETORIC OF ART
Artisticrhetoricis, for some, the zenith of work: contributing
to a sense of belongingto a glamorous occupation
(Wacquant,1995). Yet, like professionalism,the status of
artists is not a social given, but must be won. Sometimes
the victoryis linkedto the status of the organization,
sometimes to the persona of the work, and at other times to
the particulartask. Cooks as a group have not fullyachieved
artisticstatus in the eyes of the public,but at times they can
claim it (Fine, 1992). Liketattooers, hairstylists, decorators,
and graphicdesigners, they are "quasi-artists. "
100/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

There are some occasions on which most cooks would

consider themselves to be artists; at other times, this
rhetoricis absent. The creative displayof cooking, the
idiosyncratictransformationof foodstuffs, and the
presentationof food to appreciative,knowledgeable
audiences is often labelledart, while routinepreparationsare
not. The former permit,perhaps demand, cooks to see
themselves self-referentiallyas artists.
Althoughmost contemporarycooking does not emphasize
elaborateor elegant preparations,the look of the dish
matches the taste for its claim as a work of art, particularly
those dishes that are recognizedas ornate, beautiful,or
innovative.The model of food displayed in elegant
cookbooks and on television programsserves to
demonstrate the artisticpower of foodstuffs; restaurantfood
often relies on these images. One server at La Pomme de
Terrecommented that "some of the food in the evening is
so beautiful.It's a realwork of art" (field notes). Sometimes
the presentations can be elaborate,facilitatingan artistic
rhetoric,as in this descriptionof a Christmasfeast prepared
by the head chef at the Owl's Nest:
I did a dinnera couple of years ago for a food society. A chef and I
put the menu together and plannedeverythingout for it. We had
hors d'oeuvres. They were all presented on some ice carvings.We
had some served in ice, some in mirrors,and some on plates that
were made out of sugar. . . . We had served pumpkinsoup in a
squash, and we made partridgeand boned them all out, and ground
the meat and rolledit very fine and rolledit in puff pastry,and
served that on plates that we made out of real heavy pie crust, a
pastryplate. It was realattractive.We put the slices of partridgeon
there. We had tomato roses, and sauce, and it was real pretty.
Then we had a fish course in paper,and this was probablythe
prettiest stuff of all. I made a flake out of gum pastry. I had seventy
of them. I decorated them by hand. I rolledstuff out, cut it, and
dried it, and sanded it, and decorated the edges. Underthat pastry
we had the sugar plate, and we put a champagne glass which was
dipped into a currantjelly melted down. It had a realthin coating
and amber look to it. Then we put an orange ice that was like a
sugar [ice], but it's lightand piped into the glass. We put the glass
on the plate and made spun sugar. (Personalinterview,Owl's Nest)
Cooks may self-consciously define their activities as art and
are, as with this chef, proudand enthusiastic.

Artistic Analogizing
In that cooking is a quasi-art,one that has yet to carve a
place for itself amidst the clatter of better established artistic
traditions,cooks and gourmets analogizetheir work to that
of other workers who are more clearlyand consensually
defined as artists. Just as cooks, when employing
professional rhetoric,likenthemselves to doctors, they draw
parallelsto other art worlds, particularly the visual arts. It is
easy to see why cooks might see themselves as painters
(e.g., Liebling,1986: 146). The eighteenth-centurygourmet
Jean-AnthelmeBrillat-Savarin wrote that "poultryis for the
cook what canvas is for the painter"(Robbins,1984: 41).
The linkbetween paintersand cooks is so compellingthat
one New Yorkculinaryschool collaboratedwith an art
gallery,pairingpainterswith chefs to preparedinners
(Caldwell,1986: 38). Painting(and sculpture)place colors
101/ASQ, March 1996
and shapes before an audience, similarto the doings of food
preparers.
Giventhe physical realityof food, that food preparationhas
been likenedto architectureis not surprising.The traditional
wedding cake is an architecturalmarvel:A Beaux Arts
structure.The nineteenth-centuryFrenchchef Careme
noted, perhaps ironically,"The fine arts are five in number,
namely: painting,sculpture,poetry, music, and architecture,
the principalbranchof this latterbeing pastry"(Revel, 1982:
222). An obvious use of food as art is in creatingsculptures,
using not marbleor bronze, but butter, ice, marzipan,or
Spam.
Some cooks consider food to be an appliedart, because of
its practical,instrumentalrole as well as its expressive
component. AnthropologistMaryDouglas (1974: 84),
emphasizingfood's quasi-artistic,boundary-questioning
character,made this point: "[Food]shares its part-
instrumentalpart-aestheticplace in the range of all art forms
with clothing,architectureand utensil design. With these it
belongs to the group of appliedarts which is instantly
distinguishablefrom the pure, or fine arts such as music,
sculptureor visual arts." Food, designed to be consumed,
reveals a tension between form and function.These features
of food provideopportunitiesfor cooks to create their own
rhetoricof artisticwork, relyingboth on their work, which, by
an emphasis on form, proclaimsan artisticstatus, and on the
relevantmetaphors,grounded in criticaland media texts in
other artisticdomains, which suggest that a reasonable
person might appreciatethe profferedanalogy.

Artistic Occasions
Workersin many occupations, even unexpected ones, liken
themselves to artists. Locomotiveengineers (Grzyb,1990),
bullfighters(Mitchell,1986), and bartenders(Bell, 1976) each
claim the mantle of art. As noted, cooks, too, make that
claim, especially when audience and creativityare salient.

Audience. Laborershave bosses; businessmen,

shareholdersand customers; professionals, clients and
peers; yet artists have none of these. In contrast to laborers,
businessmen, and professionals, artists have audiences.
Persons pay to judge their work, expecting to be
entertained,aroused, or intrigued.The audience contributes
to the art, and so, when cooking for an audience, artistic
rhetoricis evident. The diner is the audience, who must be
pleased and who must recognize that he or she has
experienced an aesthetic achievement. Artisticstatus
fundamentallydepends on judgment (Dickie,1974). A cook
at the Blakemoredescribed the first time that he worked in
the dining room's display kitchen: "A guy . . . said to a
waitress, 'Thatguy's not a cook, he's an artist.'That made
my night. We had kabobs which were marinatedin oil. I had
like five of them ordered,and I threw them on the grillall at
the same time. It lights up the whole place. It was really
neat" (personalinterview,BlakemoreHotel). His audience
had spoken. Cooks with their "arrogant"belief in their art
hope for a knowledgeable,appreciativeaudience, and while
102/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

most cooks do not know their customers, they still typify the
good diner.
In practice,the cook's audience is often the self, demanding
food to be "as good as it can be." As one says, being an
audience to herself: "When I make my soup, I try to make it
look as nice as possible. I feel I take a lot of pridein it" (field
notes, BlakemoreHotel).Or as was said of Escoffier: "As an
artist he had to bringforth a work of art that would, first and
foremost, give him complete satisfaction,just as any other
artistwith chisel and marbleor paints and canvas does his
best for art's sake" (Herbodeauand Thalamas,1955: 4).
When this dream must be modifiedbecause of
organizationalconstraints,(Fine, 1992), the chef may feel
frustratedby being unable to impress. The chef at La
Pomme de Terreclaimed, when frustratedby not having
sufficient time to create a culinarymasterpiece, that "the
artist's pride is at stake." The occasion was ripefor art, but
not the conditionsof work. At those times when the cook
can produce for a significantother, an artisticrhetoricis
likelyto be prominent.
Creativity.As significantas is the presence of a real or
imaginedaudience, cooks who speak of an artisticspirit
often refer to situations in which they can displaytheir own
creativityand often refer to instances in which they produce
"novelty,"a feature of all arts:
You'retakingan edible productand you're reshapingand moldingit
into something that not only looks nice, but tastes good. You've
created it and you can be proudof it.... If I took and put a whole
salmon here and a bunch of differentvegetables, what could I do
with it? How could I reallymake that reallylook likeyou should
take a pictureof it? Likeit is a work of art. How can I cut the
vegetables different;what can I do to the salmon to make it
beautiful?(Personalinterview,Owl's Nest)
The absence of formalrecipes in restaurantkitchens requires
continualadjustmentin how dishes are cooked. When I
inquiredabout the sources of specials, I was often told that
the new dish was an "expansion"of a previous dish or just
"throwntogether." As with professionalism,artistic
creativitymay be ascribed to particularlytalented individuals,
as in this estimation of a chef by an admiringcook: "He's a
creative person. He takes what he knows and applies it to
what's new and different. . . . Someone will bring something
strange off the truck,and he'll figure some far out thing to
do with that" (personalinterview, La Pomme de Terre).This
image of creativityapplies to many artists, as background
knowledge and situationalexigencies combine with
experience to produce a "creative"outcome, mediated
throughthe doer's imaginationand an inchoate sense of
what "works."
Cooks refer to creations of others (the tradition)as providing
the base of their preparations,which they then vary:
Tim,the Head Chef, explainsthat he gets ideas from magazines
and cookbooks, but adds that "by the time you change it three or
four times, you tend to forget where it ever comes from. .. . I try
not to do the same sort of thing as I see . . . I try to do variations
on what - see." Tim's sous chef adds: "I get my Bon Appetit in the
mail.I come inwithnew, freshideas.Youreadthose magazines,it
103/ASQ, March 1996
kindof perks up your interest. We'd never do a blatantcopy like
that. A customer would come in and say, 'Oh, I saw that in Bon
Appetit'."(Fieldnotes, La Pomme de Terre)
The rhetoric-and reality-is that in haute cuisine
restaurants like La Pomme de Terre, as in art worlds
generally, expectations demand innovation. Knowledge and
exigency are mediated through a web of experiences of
"what works" to produce actual dishes, "a sense of putting
things together." These experiences are based on recall of
success and failure and on testing and tasting: When I asked
a chef at La Pomme de Terre how they created Brill Peach
Vin Blanc, he responded, "We had some peaches. We also
once made a sauce for salmon, and it was really good. So
we just did it here." The rhetoric of art recognizes the
unique standing of the object, coupled with an aesthetic
sensibility of the worker. When dishes matter as creations,
the creator's image becomes central to occupational identity.
The lack of routine (i.e., specials and the absence of recipes)
is critical in the establishment of an artistic self.

THE RHETORIC OF BUSINESS

What is the rhetoric of business? For some, including some
cooks, it is an "ideal" to be avoided. A concern with
business implies a primary concern with the financial health
or economic "bottom-line" of the establishment: to
maximize profit. This self-interested image appears to
conflict with the idealism we wish to link to our actions,
particularly in those restaurants where cooking is tied to
prestige markets. Locations exist within the world of elite
cooking where chefs, rhetorically at least, reject the label of
businessman:
I raised my glass and gently goaded [the Troisgrosbrothersof
Lyon]:"Here's to your future.You are world famous, you have
more business than you can possibly handle. Here's to your
rebuildingthis place as a 300-seat restaurant.You have had large
financialoffers from Paris.Here's to your opening a great
restaurantthere." Jean [Troisgros]laughed: "If I wanted to be a
businessman, I wouldn'tbe a chef." Pierre[Troisgros]said: "I want
to stay in the kitchen. I enjoy cookingwith my brother."(De Groot,
1972: 249)
Despite this elite scorn, images of rationality can permit a
business rhetoric to characterize an occupational self,
particularly as linked to control over the work process, long-
and short-term planning, and an awareness of the economic
placement of the workplace. Business skill implies a
knowledge of organizational externalities. In contrast to the
above quotation, I heard little overt denigration of the
legitimacy of a business orientation. The cooks and chefs I
observed accepted business skills as essential and
potentially self-enhancing.

Business Occasions
The rhetoric of business is evident when issues of security
are paramount: institutional and personal. To be a chef/
businessman is to have the skills that permit one's
establishment to survive and prosper. giving one a sense of
occupational satisfaction by juggling the variables involved in
104/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

economic success. On a personal level, one wishes to

survive as well and to gain the resources to live comfortably
and easily, to move from the rushed din of the kitchen (Fine,
1990) to the relativelycalm certaintyof the office, where
chefs preparetheir supply orders and figure out staffing
needs.
Survival skills. Business rhetoricis not randomlyspread
throughoutwork but is often evident in those places and
times in which cooks and chefs confrontexternal
boundaries.Most cooks and chefs do not blindlyreject the
identityof businessman and do not believe they are
hypocriticalto be conscious of the bottom line.
If one could erase externalforces, business talk would be
rare,but the outside world intrudes.This rhetoricis often
found at the inputand the output boundariesof the kitchen
(Hirsch,1972). Concernabout pricingoccurs when specials
are prepared.When chefs purchase foodstuffs from
purveyors,marketprices are partof the discussion. Similarly,
when the output boundaryis the garbage can, cooks discuss
what they can salvage, cutting costs and keeping their self-
esteem intact. Business may be inimicalto art, to
professionalism,and to the alienationof labor,but we toil in
a world in which an economic realityis frequentlypresent.
Because of the occupationalexpectations of chefs, as
opposed to cooks, business rhetoric,more than the others,
is segmented by position, linkedto one's career stage.
Some cooks indicatedthat business skills were a
requirementfor chefs but that they considered themselves
labor,not management. One told me, "A chef is a
businessman; a cook isn't. A cook is basicallya laborer"
(personalinterview, BlakemoreHotel).Yet, for chefs, and for
cooks who anticipatedbecoming chefs, business rhetoric
was common. Some cooks felt that by their proximityto
chefs, they could acquirebusiness skills that would serve
them well:
I don't thinkthat a cook reallyneeds [business skills].You've got
the owner and the managerbehindyou takingcare of all that.
That'swhat makes workingin the restaurantfrom the beginninga
good way to learnit, 'cause you can absorbthe business partof it
along with everything.No one actuallysits down and teaches you
this, but you get a good sense of the way things are runand where
things come from. Obviouslythe zucchinidoesn't come from the
moon. It's ordered;it's pricedout. Eachtowel that you use is
fifteen cents to clean it and come back, you become aware of stuff
like that. (Personalinterview,La Pomme de Terre)
While these business skills may not be as glamorous as
artisticabilities,they are necessary in ensuringthe survival
of the establishment. Cooks recognize this in justifyingthe
concern of chefs with business matters:
He has to understandmoney. He has to understandsupply and
demand. He has to understandhow to change with society when
the economy takes a flip-flop.He has to be able to accept that, so
that he doesn't go down the tubes. That'swhere a lot of
restaurantsfail. The economy goes shaky, and they forget that they
have to compensate for that and that's it. Before they know it,
they're six months in the red or their year of no profitis here and
they haveto shutthe door.(Personalinterview,LaPommede
Terre)
105/ASQ, March 1996
Withoutthese skills, the chefs fail and the restaurantdies:
You need business skills in just about anythingthat you're going to
do.... If you don't know how to work with the numbers and how
to controlyour food costs, how much you're orderingand how
much you're spending, how much you're takingin, if you don't
have any business background.. . . [Some chefs] aren't reallyin
touch with [business skills], "so what if I spend $300 on fish or
whatever." They'rejust spending more than they've taken in. Of
course they're going to go out of business. (Personalinterview,
Owl's Nest)
Others emphasize that chefs are supervisors and must
maximizeworker productivity.Controllinglaborcosts is as
importantas controllingfood costs but is psychologically
more taxing, since food does not complain,shirkwork, or
quit.
The need for business skills is particularly
evident when the
economy is in transition,a restaurantis expanding(or
downsizing),or a chef is involvedin a management venture.
This cook warns about the importanceof mastering those
skills that lead to survivaland esteem in a competitive
economic world:
[One of my TVIinstructors]left [workingas a chef for a hotel] and
wanted to go into business for himself. He started kindof like a
drive-in.He wanted to get a nice restaurantgoing, and he could've
if he would've started right,I think,but he ended up in this little
run-downdrive-in,and he sold orientalfood take-out. He had like
two or three tables and then that flopped about a year ago. He left
the [hotel]corporation,and said, "Iwant to do what I want to do. I
want to get into business for myself." It seems like he didn't have
it set up well enough. (Personalinterview,BlakemoreHotel)

Personal transitions. Over time, one's occupationalgoals

change-beginning with a commitment to personal
satisfaction or art; later,financialsecurity, personal
advancement, or a desire for control may become dominant.
Manycooks see their career trajectoryleadingto
management, a form of anticipatorysocializationthat
encourages business rhetoric.The Americanchef Richard
Olney argued: "I thinkyoung chefs are too greedy perhaps.
Twenty or thirtyyears ago, no one expected to make a
fortune immediatelyin a restaurant.It's a different
mentality-thinking only about money" (Cook's Magazine,
1986: 22). Perhaps Olney is overly cynical,but the chefs and
cooks that I observed were concerned about their financial
security, althoughperhaps not at all costs. The head chef at
La Pomme de Terre,a gifted young culinarymaster,
expressed no interest in kitchenwork as a lifetime career.
While I was observing, the chef and owner were planningto
open a trendy Italianrestaurant.The chef was excited by his
involvementin this project "fromthe bottom rung of the
ladderin getting that restaurantstarted," includingstaffing,
contracting,and licensing (field notes). Fromthis venture, he
would gain skills to permit him to succeed as an
independent businessman or ertrepreneur.Withina few
years after this research, he had left the kitchenentirelyand
expressed satisfaction in his employment by a food
company. His sous chef, subsequently chef at La Pomme de
Terre,told me he was going to be promoted to restaurant
managerat another of the owner's restaurants.I asked if he
106/ASQ,March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

would miss cooking. He assured me not, because both

money and decision-makingauthoritywere enhanced in this
new position.
Hotels may be attractiveas career options. Even if hotels do
not permitthe culinaryautonomy of a freestanding
restaurant,they pay better and teach management skills.
Despite frustrationwith the hotel, a cook explained:
I'd like to end up becoming an executive chef, preferablyfor a big
hotel or corporation... . They pay good, and hotels are great
experience.... I thinkwhat I want to do is work my way up to
executive chef throughthe hotel chain, because I thinkthey give
you a lot. There's a lot more pressure on keeping your food costs
down and your laborcosts down, and I thinkI would learn more
throughdoing it througha hotel, ratherthan doing it througha club.
(Personalinterview,BlakemoreHotel)
Money and controlare powerful inducements for chefs, just
as for professors who once valued independence but agree
to become deans. In some measure they have risen in the
status hierarchyof their work. Occupationalidentities change
over the life course. Financialexigencies and a desire to
shape an organizationprove difficultto resist.

THERHETORIC OF LABOR
If the rhetoricof business is a resource that chefs use to talk
about their external relations,the rhetoricof laboris a
resource for cooks who are organizationallypressured. In
restaurants,as in so much of industry,deskillingis evident,
true in establishments like chains and
and this is particularly
franchises, in which management attempts to rationalize
production.Increasingly,management in much of the
restaurantindustryenforces standardization,a trend noted
decades ago by Whyte (1948: 29); cooks may be requiredto
rely on corporate-sanctionedrecipes. Manualtasks (e.g.,
finely choppingvegetables) are mechanized, or individual
portionsmay be microwaved.As Lutece's Andre Soltner
remarked,cooks requirediscipline:" 'Maybe some of us
have a littletalent, but we are not artists. Artists are people
filledwith talent, but many have no discipline.We cannot
affordthat. We are disciplinedcrafts people, with a little
talent' " (Burros, 1986: 25).

Of all the rhetoricalresources, laborrhetoriccan be the most

negative and self-denigrating.Forsome, to imagine oneself a
laboreris to embrace failure:"You'redoing a lot of grunt
work. Doing a lot of heavy labor.There's pressure in
performance involved. . . . The pay scale is low considering
what's involved.There is a tendency [forthere] to be little
appreciationfor what [cooks] do" (personalinterview, La
Pomme de Terre).While one can sympathizewith the
frustratedworkerwho uses the rhetoricof manuallabor,
such discourse may also create a positive identity.Fromthe
standpointof the professional,the appeal of callingoneself a
manuallaboreris limited,but advantages do exist. Most
notable is the security arisingfrom vesting authorityin
another, limitingpersonal responsibility.One is protected by
performinga fixed task accordingto another's plan. In
addition,traditionalskills are valued-efficiency, dexterity,
107/ASQ, March 1996
stamina, and satisfactionfrom physicalwork. Laborcan be
justifiedin its own terms. One cook glorifiedmanuallabor:
People are workingwith basic stuff: fire and food. It's like working
with machinery,and you're not sitting at an office havingthink
sessions with honchos from FordMotorCompany,and tryingto
develop the latest ad campaign.You'reworkingwith basic human
stuff. To me, that's the definitionof a blue collarjob-things that
people need everyday.White collarworkers: people don't need
insurance[or the] latest ad campaign.It's there everyday,but they
don't reallyneed it. People need food, and people need machinery
and eyeglasses. (Personalinterview,La Pomme de Terre)
One cook, a former chef, is explicitabout the trade skills
requiredin the kitchen:
You have to be a plumberif the sink plugs up. Dishwasherbreaks
down on Saturdaynight, and you have to know a littleabout it, or
you're going to wash dishes by hand. . .. Hot water heater goes
out, you have to know how to light it again. Gas or electric stove.
You have to know a little about it. At least, know where the circuit
breakeris, if electric-gas, to know where to turn it on or off.
You've got to be a half-assedfireman,in case you start a fire. You
have to know how to put it out. . . . You've got to be a janitor.You
have to mop the floor.All differentthings. Refrigerationto check
breakersand fans. (Personalinterview,Owl's Nest)
The self-definitionof work may deviate from its public
evaluation(Molstad,1986; Paget, 1988). Even for manual
labora self-affirmingcontext exists. Some can defend
"mindless"work as desirable. Routinework, when justified,
can be experienced as enjoyableand attractive,even if in
theory it is remarkablymundane. Such work permits
secondary mental involvements (Becker, 1960; Stebbins,
1970). Routinetasks permitthe floweringof an internallife
while one is ostensibly engaged, as a chef at the Blakemore
told me: "I like to preparestuff. I find pleasure is just cutting
up carrots, celery. . . . I like to think a lot and just reflect, and
when you're doing that kindof work you're allowed to roam
in your own mind while you're still there." When work is set
within a temporaland spatialcontext in which a worker has
some measure of personal control,tedious tasks become
manageable,or even pleasant (see Roy, 1959-60; Molstad,
1986).
Further,honor is found among the tasks of blue-collar
workers (Meara,1974; Riemer, 1979), grounded in the
necessity of dirtywork. Fromthis a feeling of camaraderieor
communitydevelops (Bryantand Perkins,1982: 210).
Workplacesmay includean "informalworkplaceeconomy"
from which workers benefit and with which they express
satisfaction. Forexample, in several instances I observed
cooks "mistakenly"cook or overcook a dish that they could
then consume, since it would have been thrown out
otherwise. Managementoften winks at unofficialperks, such
as drinking,snacking,and even bringingfood home (Fine,
1996: 126-130), makingdifficultworkingconditionstolerable
and, by buildingcommunity,strengtheningorganizational
loyalty.

Labor Occasions
The rhetoricof laboris particularlyevident at two junctures
of the work process. The signal virtuefor the worker is that
108/ASQ, March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

he or she is able to embody competence: Physicallaboris

ennobling,operatingthroughthe power of the body. In
instances in which physicallaboris paramount,a rhetoricof
laboris evident. A second feature of manuallabor,
distinguishingit from professionalism,art, and business is
the directionof work tasks by others: Laboris supervised,
mitigatingpersonal commitment; when supervisionand its
limits are salient, a rhetoricof laboris common.

Embodying competence. Manuallaboris by definition

physical. In contrast to the image of white-collarwork,
manuallaboris embodied, involvingthe satisfactions and
discomforts of using one's body. Technical,specialized, or
difficultbodilymovements may be enjoyable,or they may
become routineand "boring."A job that demands
challengingphysicalskills can be satisfying, even if these
skills are denigratedby others (Riemer,1979). Cooks often
claim to enjoy the "practice"of cooking. When one cook
was busily engaged in the seemingly mundanetask of
choppingcelery, onions, and carrots,she proudlyindicatedto
me how much she enjoyed using her hands, preferringit to
more "intellectual"work. When I laterasked her about what
she most enjoyed about being a cook, she responded: "I
enjoy doing it, I guess. I'm always moving. I could never just
sit down for eight hours a day. I would just go crazy"
(personalinterview, BlakemoreHotel).Anothercook was
even more explicit: "I like labor.I like physical performance.
I don't mind sweating and workinghard.That's what I enjoy
most . . . the physical part. Just being able to use my hands"
(personalinterview, La Pomme de Terre).
The physical performanceof work bringssubcultural
prestige; the failureto meet this standardshames one. A
cook described cutting his hand: "You'renot supposed to
talk and chop at the same time. I cut my finger the first day I
was working. I was so embarrassed"(field notes, Blakemore
Hotel). Most cooks claim to enjoy the physicalityof cooking,
althoughthis enjoyment is tempered by routine.When cooks
chop, cut, run,and carry,they rely on the rhetoricof labor,
however the work is evaluated.
The key negative image of physicalwork is not that it is
hard,althoughcooking is tiringand physicallydemanding
(Marshall,1986: 39). The deeper problemis boredom. The
work often demands too little of the brain,undercuttingself-
esteem. Once, after being impressed by how routinethe
cooking of steaks at Stan's seemed, I asked a cook whether
he thought about the routine.He responded, "Allthe time.
You got to live with it. It's not that bad. You just live with it.
... It doesn't take much skilled work. It's just doing it" (field
notes, Stan's). Anothertold me that his prep work "just
comes automatic.You do it in your sleep" (field notes, Owl's
Nest). Cookingmay not be mentallydemandingenough to
be anythingother than labor;some forms of "line"cooking
are reminiscentof factoryassembly-lineproduction:"It's like
factorywork. You cook one thing. Top sirloinsover and over
again. Sometimes it's just butt-breakingwork. It's hot and
dirty. ... Like a laborer on the job, digging in a ditch. You're
doing the same thing. But basicallyyou're just going to be
so tired when you get done with it" (personalinterview,
109/ASQ, March 1996
Stan's). "Just doing it," despite Nike's claims, may not be
sufficient for identitywork.
Supervision. Perceivingoneself as a laboreris equivalentto
accepting the realitythat others have decision-making
authority.Workersbow to a hierarchicalmonitoringwhen
supervisionis salient. When I asked why a task was done in
a particularway, I was often told that the manageror chef
decided. Cooks recognize that because of their position, their
autonomy is limited.
Images of temporalcontroldifferentiatesworkers'
perspectives. Artists, in theory, are little concerned over the
durationof a task (cf. Becker, 1982). Professionals, because
of the relativequiescence of their clients, have temporal
flexibility,in that they set the conditionsof their work. Those
who define themselves in business terms emphasize
temporalefficiency. Laborers,in contrast, often wish to
transformpublictime into personaltime. To the extent that
they conceive of themselves throughthis rhetoricalvision,
they attempt to controlthe clock. By workingslowly, they
can "legitimately"avoid certaintasks because their hours
are completed, and managers are reluctantto pay overtime.
This sentiment was especially notable at the Blakemore
Hotel, where one cook explainedthat he was expected to
braise cabbage for dinner,but that "I don't feel like working
late." He left the task for a cook who arrivedlater.Another
told me that he was planningto leave when his shift ended,
no matterwhat was left to do: "No place gets my time....
I've been going like this for a long time. You got to do your
work, you got to make your money. You got to shut your
mouth. And that's it. ... You won't find no die-hards who
will go down with the ship" (field notes, BlakemoreHotel).A
thirdcook, on the surface less cynical,had a similaroutlook,
"My motto is get them in, get them fed, go home early"
(field notes, Owl's Nest). When cooks work overtime or
arriveearlyto complete their tasks and help others, they
justifythis seeming "organizational altruism"by indicating
that it provides moralauthorityto "goof off" later.These
workers have a standardof how hardthey should work;
some voluntarilywork "overtime"if they feel they have not
put in a full day. They maintaina sense of temporaljustice:
There are nights where I've been there for eleven hours, and I
signed up for eight because I know I've sloughed off for three
hours, because I wasn't in any hurry.I didn'tcare if I got it done at
any certaintime, because I didn'thave to. I took my sweet old time
in getting it done. Why hurryif you don't have to? (Fieldnotes,
BlakemoreHotel)
Workersspeak of a reasonableand fairexchange rate for
their pay, autonomouslysetting their schedule, even though
outsiders might consider that they are working "forfree."
These attitudes are not absolute, changingas a function of
the task and mood. Conscientiousness is situated. The head
chef at the Blakemorenoted of some of his workers:
Dana, if she wanted to [couldbe very good], but she doesn't
always want to. She knows how to make good things. . . . If it's a
good day, the flavors in the soup will be nicely balanced. If it was a
bad day, the soup can look like paste, or blandon one taste or
another being dominant.Ron's no different.If he's in a good mood,
11O/ASQ,March 1996
Occupational Rhetorics

he'll French[do a Frenchcut on] the lamb chops. Otherwise he'll

let it slip. (Fieldnotes, BlakemoreHotel)
This chef believes the abilityof his cooks (andtheir self-
definitions)is situationallydetermined.
Ultimately,the most salient realityexplainingthe rhetoricof
manuallaboris that one is workingfor the money: One's
commitment ends at the paycheck. Cooks may be bitter
toward management, as when one scorns his boss's
congratulationsafter a hectic evening, commenting that his
work is "slave labor."As a result of this absence of
commitment, some jobs, even those that might be
perceived as advancements, are rejected because the
rewardsare not sufficientlygreat (Paules, 1991: 49): "I was
sous [assistant]chef in the Blakemorefor three days. It was
reallyboring.I didn'twant to devote heart and soul like I
would've been coerced to do, and spend twelve and sixteen
hours a day at the Blakemoreall the time. I reallywasn't up
to doing that. I didn'twant to put in the time" (personal
interview, BlakemoreHotel).
When workers define what they do as manuallabor,they
may reject the occupationalcommitment that is linkedto
professionalism.Even though the physicalcomponents of
labormay be satisfying, the presence of supervision,the lack
of control,the low wages, and the routinecan be a killing
combination.The rhetoricof laboris often self-negating,
separatingone's core self from the work that one is required
to perform.In this, it vaults the privateself above the
occupationalself.

OCCUPATIONAL TALK,OCCUPATIONAL DEMANDS

Cooks use a range of occupationalrhetoricsas resources to
providea sense of self-worth. In this they are not alone.
Few, if any, occupations fit perfectly into a single
occupational"type." Classificationspresent ideal types into
which collections of tasks in real organizationsdo not fit
comfortably.Recognizingthat each "occupation"is divided
terrain-temporally and in terms of divisions within the
occupation-doctors, lawyers, cooks, farmers, or miners do
not see their work as identicalto that of their colleagues or
to their own work over time.
One's rhetoricalidentificationwith work is variableand is
used as a strategic resource to embrace or to separate one's
self from a work domain. Occupationalrhetoricis both a
social psychologicaland sociopoliticalphenomenon, providing
satisfactionand status-or, in some instances, subtracting
from these. Individualsidentifythemselves with social
groupingsthroughdeeds, words, and thoughts. By the
placement of an occupationwithin an organizationalfield,
workers provisionallycreate occupationalmeanings, given
the real constraintsunderwhich they work and in light of the
evaluationsof other actors who impinge on their claimed
expertise.
Workersdepend on images of their work and its
characteristicsto create occupationalidentity.These images
are simultaneouslypublic,subcultural,and personal.These
images are not eternal, however, nor are they fully defining.
111/ASQ, March 1996
In practice,workers use images and typificationswhen and
if they seem appropriate:the bricolageof identitywork.
Most occupations incorporatediverse tasks that have more
or less creativity,autonomy, boredom, and goal-
directedness. Each task or set of tasks conveys self-images
and implicationsfor identity-implications that differ among
groups and individuals.
Cooks, situated within an occupationthat is cross-cut by
numerous conflictingstrains, represent a compelling
example of how a range of identities can define a worker.
Similarly,doctors have a steady belief in their own
professionalismand in their concern with patient care, yet,
simultaneously,they are concerned with the business of
livingwell, the craftperson'spride in setting a bone, and the
aesthetic joy of a subtle diagnosis. They are businessmen at
the same time as they are professionals and artists and may
even thinkof themselves, as did surgeons once, as laboring
sawbones. Plumbers,too, are caught between strains that
lead them to define themselves as businesspeople,
professionals, manuallaborers,and perhaps, on occasion,
artists. This conflict between "high"(moral)and "low"
(egocentric)rhetoricshas sometimes been seen as
hypocrisy,as when moraldecisions are "limited"by
egocentric needs; still, each rhetoricco-exists, typically
without inducingcynicism by the speaker. Forthose
occupations that do not come to these identities naturally
(i.e., throughpublicconsensus), a process of analogizing
one's work to other realms is often necessary. If the pattern
of one's work can be analogizedto work of a higherstatus,
some status may ruboff.
To appreciatethe diversities of occupationalrhetoric,we
must understandthe situated characterof self-identifications
in lightof those occupationaldemands that give rise to
them. In which contexts do rhetoricalresources appear?
Restaurantsdiffer in their organizational,cultural,and work
demands. Certaintypes of tasks are more likelyin a
neighborhoodsteakhouse, such as Stan's, leadingto an
emphasis on laborrhetoric,and others in haute cuisine
restaurants,such as La Pomme de Terre.Some workers
explicitlysuggested, for example, that there is no special
talent necessary for culinarywork; anyone can be trained,a
realitythat limits the claim of art in kitchens. One young
cook at Stan's explained: "It seems that all the other cooks
can do the same as me, so I reallydon't think[cooking is an
art]"(personalinterview).Second, because differenttypes of
workers, with more or less culturalcapital,are hired
depending on the marketniche of the restaurant,types of
rhetoricdifferas a consequence of the education and self-
image of workers. Finallymanagers, servers, and customers
help to set an organizationalclimate in which certain
rhetoricsare seen as appropriate.While, in my observation,
all four rhetoricalstances were found in each restaurant,
they were not evenly distributed.Further,the career stage of
workers affects not only the tasks that they are likelyto
encounter, but responses to those tasks. More experienced
workers are likelyto employ rhetoricaltechniques that
emphasize personal expertise and are likelyto be given tasks
that demand more skilland supervision. Identityneeds
112/ASQ, March 1996
 Occupational Rhetorics

change across the lifespan,just as tasks vary.To focus on

the situated characterof identityis not to deny that identity
is linkedto organizationaltype or characteristicsof workers.
Recognizingthat withina scene multiplerhetoricsare
possible, the question is when rhetoricalimages will come
to describe the self. A rhetoricalresource appears in those
circumstances in which the immediate objectives of the
workerare emotionallyand cognitivelylinkedto the salience
of a demand or choice.
Giventhat occupationalimages are widely held, workers
have access to different rhetoricalvisions to be used as part
of their culturaltoolkit,when they conceive of their work to
fit into these patterns in its technique, constraints,
motivation,or audience. Among cooks, artisticrhetoricis
often a concomitantof the presence of an appreciative
audience and occurs when there is a demand for novelty
(creativity).A self-image of professionalismoccurs when
specialized knowledge and allegiance is criticalto the doing
of work. Business identities are particularlylikelywhere
there are externalboundariesand duringoccupational
transitions,in which reward/cost structuresare evident.
Finally,a laboridentityis linkedto the salience of supervision
and of physicaleffort.
Other occupations reveal differentpatternsof images, but it
is the salience of opportunitiesand constraintsthat leads to
the forms of identitywork. Tasks and the organizationsin
which they are embedded providerepertoiresof discourse
that workers use to shape and create a sense of who they
are-to themselves and, thence, to their publics.
Ultimately,this analysis reminds us that the tasks of work
are relatedto the self of the worker. By recognizingthat
occupations are divided-by organization,career stage, and
task-I argue that an occupationalself is a social
construction,not given by an occupation's dominantidentity.
While publicpolicy often addresses occupationalwork
broadly(i.e., alteringthe conditionsof medical practice by
changing relationsto the state or to insurancecompanies),
equallyimportantis the dailytasks of workers.
Beyond this interactionistanalysis stands the
interpenetrationof changes on the state, institutional,and
organizationallevel and the situated assignments of
workers. While my analysis is ethnographic,implicitis the
organizationalconstraintssuch as laborcosts, marketniches,
or dividedlabormarketsthat produce the constraints under
which workers toil and underwhich they define their selves.
Workmay be justifiedby workers, but this justification
depends mightilyon choices made by others.

REFERENCES
Abbott, Andrew Alexander, C. Norman, and Aron, Jean-Paul
1988 The System of Professions. Mary G. Wiley 1975 The Art of Eating in France.
Chicago: University of 1981 "Situated activity and identity New York: Harper & Row.
Chicago Press. formation." In Morris
Baker, Wayne E., and Robert R.
Rosenberg and Ralph H.
Faulkner
Turner (eds.), Social
1991 "Role as resource in the
Psychology: Sociological
Hollywood film industry."
Perspectives: 269-289. New
American Journal of
York: Basic Books.
Sociology, 97: 279-309.

113/ASQ, March 1996

Barber, Bernard
1965 "The sociology of the
professions." In Kenneth S.
Lyon (ed.), The Professions in
America: 15-34. Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Baumeister, Roy F., and
Leonard S. Newman
1994 "How stories make sense of
personal experiences:
Motives that shape
autobiographical narratives."
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20:
676-690.
Becker, Howard S.
1960 "Notes on the concept of
commitment." American
Journal of Sociology, 66:
32-40.
1970 "The nature of a profession."
In Howard S. Becker (ed.),
Sociological Work: Method
and Substance: 87-103.
Chicago: Aldine.
1982 Art Worlds. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Becker, Howard S., and James
Carper
1956 "The elements of
identification with an
occupation." American
Sociological Review, 21:
341-348.
Bell, Michael
1976 "Tending bar at Brown's:
Occupational role as artistic
performance." Western
Folklore, 35: 93-107.
Blau, Judith
1984 Architects and Firms.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Boden, Deirdre
1994 The Business of Talk.
Cambridge: Polity.
Braude, Lee
1975 Work and Workers: A
Sociological Analysis. New
York: Praeger.
Bruner, Jerome S.
1986 Actual Minds, Possible
Worlds. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bryant, Clifton D., and Kenneth B.
Perkins
1,982 "Containing work
disaffection: The poultry
processing worker." In Phyllis
L. Stewart and Muriel G.
Cantor (eds.), Varieties of
Work: 199-213. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Bucher, Rue
1962 "Pathology: A study of social
movements within a
profession." Social Problems,
10: 40-51.
Bucher, Rue, and Anselm Strauss
1961 "Professions in process."
American Journal of
Sociology, 66: 325-334.
Burke, Kenneth
1969 A Rhetoric of Motives.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burros, Marian
1986 "What makes Andre Soltner
tick? His restaurant, Lutece."
New York Times (October
29): 23, 25.
Caldwell, Mary
1986 "Food imitates art." Cook's
Magazine, May/June: 38-48,
80.
Colomy, Paul, and J. David Brown
1995 "Elaboration, revision,
polemic, and progress in the
Second Chicago School." In
Gary Alan Fine (ed.), A
Second Chicago School?: The
Development of a Postwar
American Sociology: 17-81.
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Cook's Magazine
1986 "The cook's interview:
Richard Olney." Cook's
Magazine, May/June: 21-22.
De Groot, Roy
1972 "Have I found the greatest
restaurant in the world?"
Playboy, April: 107, 116,
244-249.
Dickie, George
1974 Art and the Aesthetic: An
Institutional Analysis. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Dingwall, Robert
1977 "'Atrocity stories' and
professional relationships."
Sociology of Work and
Occupations, 4: 371-396.
Dornbusch, Sanford M., and
W. Richard Scott
1975 Evaluation and the Exercise of
Authority. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Douglas, Mary
1974 "Food as an art form." Studio
International, September:
83-88.
Etzioni, Amitai (ed.)
1969 The Semi-Professions and
Their Organization. New York:
Free Press.
Fine, Gary Alan
1985 "Occupational aesthetics:
How trade school students
learn to cook." Urban Life,
14: 3-31.
114/ASQ, March 1996
1990 "Organizational time: The
temporal experience of
restaurant kitchens." Social
Forces, 69: 95-114.
1991 "On the microfoundations of
macrosociology: Constraint
and the exterior reality of
structure." Sociological
Quarterly, 32: 161-177.
1992 "The culture of production:
Aesthetic choices and
constraints in culinary work."
American Journal of
Sociology, 97: 1268-1294.
1996 Kitchens: The Culture of
Restaurant Work. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Friedson, Eliot
1970 Professional Dominance: The
Social Structure of Medical
Care. NewYork: Atherton.
Gergen, Kenneth
1991 The Saturated Self. New
York: Basic Books.
Gergen, Kenneth J., and Mary
Gergen
1988 "Narrative and the self as
relationship." In Leonard
Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social
Psychology: 17-56. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Greenwood, Ernest
1957 "The attributes of a
profession." Social Work, 2:
44-55.
Gross, Edward
1958 Work and Society. New York:
Crowell.
Grzyb, Gerard J.
1990 "Deskilling, decollectivation
and diesels." Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography,
19: 163-187.
Haas, Jack, and William Shaffir
1982 "Ritual evaluation of
competence: The hidden
curriculum of
professionalization in an
innovative medical school
program." Work and
Occupations, 9: 131-154.
Herbodeau, Eugene, and Paul
Thalamas
1955 George Auguste Escoffier.
London: Practical Press.
Hirsch, Paul
1972 "Processing fads and
fashions: An organization-set
analysis of cultural work."
American Journal of
Sociology, 77: 639-659.
Hughes, Everett
1971 The Sociological Eye. Boston:
Little, Brown.

Julian, Sheryl
1986 "New England schools for
chefs-to-be." Boston Globe,
22 October: 37, 41, 42.
Kraft Foodservice Division
n.d. Hail to the Chef! Chicago: EBO
Productions, Inc.
Liebling, A. J.
1986 Between Meals: An Appetite
for Paris. San Francisco:
North Point Press.
Lincoln, James R., and Arne L.
Kalleberg
1990 Culture, Control and
Commitment: A Study of
Work Organization and Work
Attitudes in the United States
and Japan. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Manfredi, John
1982 The Social Limits of Art.
Amherst, MA: University of
Massachusetts Press.
Mars, Gerald, and Michael Nicod
1984 The World of Waiters.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Marshall, Gordon
1986 "The workplace culture of a
licensed restaurant." Theory,
Culture, and Society, 3:
33-47.
Meara, Hannah
1974 "Honor in dirty work: The
case of American meat
cutters and Turkish butchers."
Sociology of Work and
Occupations, 1: 259-283.
Mitchell, Timothy J.
1986 "Bullfighting: The ritual origin
of scholarly myths." Journal
of American Folklore, 99:
394-414.
Molstad, Clark
1986 "Choosing and coping with
boring work," Urban Life, 15:
215-236.
Nilson, Linda B.
1979 "An application of the
occupational 'uncertainty
principle' to the professions."
Social Problems, 26:
570-581.
Paget, Marianne
1988 The Unity of Mistakes: A
Phenomenological
Interpretation of Medical
Work. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Occupational Rhetorics
Paules, Greta Foff
1991 Dishing It Out: Power and
Resistance among Waitresses
in a New Jersey Restaurant.
Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Perrow, Charles
1967 "A framework for the
comparative analysis of
organizations." American
Sociological Review, 32:
194-208.
Revel, Jean-Francois
1982 Culture and Cuisine: A
Journey through the History
of Food. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Riemer, Jeffrey W.
1979 Hard Hats: The Work World
of Construction Workers.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Robbins, Maria P.
1984 The Cook's Quotation Book.
New York: Penguin.
Rosenblum, Barbara
1978 "Style as social process."
American Sociological Review,
43: 422-438.
Roth, Julius
1974 "Professionalism: The
sociologist's decoy."
Sociology of Work and
Occupations, 1: 6-51.
Roy, Donald
1959-
1960 "Banana time: Job
satisfaction and informal
interaction." Human
Organization, 18: 156-168.
Scott, W. Richard
1992 Organizations: Rational,
Natural, and Open Systems,
3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Snow, David, and Leon Anderson
1987 "Identity work among the
homeless: The verbal
construction and avowal of
personal identities." American
Journal of Sociology, 92:
1336-1371.
Stebbins, Robert A.
1970 "On misunderstanding the
concept of commitment: A
theoretical clarification."
Social Forces, 48: 526-529.
115/ASQ, March 1996
Stone, Gregory
1962 "Appearance and the self." In
Human Behavior and Social
Processing: 86-118. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Strauss, Anselm
1988 "The articulation of project
work: An organization
process." Sociological
Quarterly, 29: 163-178.
1991 Creating Sociological
Awareness: Collective Images
and Symbolic
Representations. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Van Maanen, John, and Edgar
Schein
1979 "Toward a theory of
organizational socialization." In
B. M. Staw and L. L.
Cummings(eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior, 1:
209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Wacquant, Loic J. D.
1995 "The pugilistic point of view:
How boxers think and feel
about their trade." Theory and
Society, 24 (in press).
Wechsberg, Joseph
1985 Blue Trout and Black Truffles.
Chicago: Academy Chicago
Publishers.
Whyte, William Foote
1948 Human Relations in the
Restaurant Industry. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Wilensky, Harold
1964 "The professionalization of
everyone." American Journal
of Sociology, 70: 137-158.
Willan, Anne
1977 Great Chefs and Their
Recipes. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Zabusky, Stacia, and Stephen R.
Barley
1996 "You can't be a stone if
you're cement: Re-evaluating
the emic identities of
scientists in organizations."
Working paper, Dept. of
Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management,
Stanford University.
Zurcher, Louis
1977 The Mutable Self. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.